Craig Wright’s 2008 white paper on electronic contracting is significant—here’s why
Going forward, and in cases, I will not be hiding or protecting anything related to my past.
As a starter, Dr. Craig Wright links to a white paper he worked on in 2006 (published in 2008)
Why the Dr. Wright white paper from 2008 on Electronic Contracting is significant
Let me guide you through this. As you can see in Dr. Wright’s paper from 2008, he wrote:
An electronic signature, in the form of a digital signature, may satisfy the functional requirements of the law of contracts. It must be noted that the signatures itself does not afford sufficient proof of the signatory’s identity. Further evidence is required which links the public key (…) used to the party. This could be proven through adducing additional extrinsic evidence such as is commonly employed when seeking to determine the identity associated with a signature on a manuscript (van de Graaf, 1987).
Yes, this is a quote from Dr. Wright—from 2008, a published white paper for GIAC certification. See also Dr. Wright’s profile at GIAC.
The above-mentioned quote shows that Dr. Wright—in 2008—knew that an electronic signature needs “extrinsic evidence” concerning identity matters. Extrinsic evidence in this context means further information outside of the electronic signature environment.
The whole digital currency world is asking Dr. Wright to “sign with Satoshi’s keys.” Signing with an electronic key is not the same as using an electronic key. Read the above-mentioned quote again:
Further evidence is required which links the public key (…) used to the party. This could be proven through adducing additional extrinsic evidence (…).
Further evidence for identity.
I must shove it down your throat like that. Sorry:
People need to understand it, or else we are doomed to a dystopian “AI”-world that will seek to kill everything human in you. We are trying to save you.
Dr. Wright said and still says: An electronic signature needs additional extrinsic evidence for identification other than simply using a digital key.
‘Crypto’ world says: No, the ability to use a digital key itself is the proof of identity.
The truth is: By using a digital key, you prove nothing but one thing—that you have access/control over that key at a certain time. That does not mean you are the person who should have access/control over that key.
Example 1: I steal the keys to your car. Then I use the keys to your car. Is your car my car now? No. Am I the owner of the car because I can access the car? No.
Example 2: I put your name without your consent under a document. Am I you? No. Have you signed the document because your name is written there? No.
Example 3: I use your Bitcoin private key. Does anyone know who I am because I used your private key? No.
To give you more context:
The Bitcoin white paper was published in 2008. The above-mentioned white paper from Dr. Wright was also published in 2008.
Now in the 2020s, Dr. Wright is teaching the world that we are not private keys. For this, he is paying a high price. Using a key in Bitcoin does not prove the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, but it would have allegedly satisfied the collective. He did not follow that path. However, it has created a lot of sacrifices since then.
We have an identity, and private or public keys are part of that identity for sure. But they are not the identity. They are the tools of a person: persons, not bits.
We have reported on that: Are we private keys? Bitcoin and identity
Furthermore, Dr. Wright published an article in 2020 titled “Keys ≠ Identity,” in which he basically refers to his 2008 GIAC white paper:
For a digital signature algorithm to link the key to an individual and hence the act, there needs to be some way to register and control the signature key. Where such is not the case, it is not possible to say that the individual engaged in the act, and some other extrinsic evidence would need to be provided. Such evidence is not evidence of possessing a key at a later point in time, but it is the ability to introduce extrinsic evidence that proves the control of the key at the time the signature was reportedly made.
Anonymous signature? No, not at all
The enemies of Dr. Wright are—for the most part—not public. They are hiding, they are anonymous, and they are committing crimes. Such is the reason they try to enable an anonymous world with different ‘crypto’ projects. So-called smart contracts are, in part, even marketed as something like “finally anonymous contracting.”
A contract is a mutual agreement. Mutual means there are parties. Parties mean there are individuals (natural or legal) participating: persons, not bits.
In “Keys ≠ Identity,” Dr. Wright is referring to Prof. Chris Reed’s “What is a Signature?” in which we find this definition of the functions of signatures in general:
The primary function of a signature is to provide evidence of three matters:
the identity of the signatory;
intention to make a signature;
and that the signatory adopts the contents of the document.
An anonymous signature is an oxymoron. A pseudonymous signature, such as using your initials, or your artist’s name, is not—if the initials or artist’s name allow for identification.
Signatures have the purpose to assign legally binding statements to someone. If “signed anonymously,” there is no assignment. It is like writing anything under a document, for example: “dfh9whf8wn0n08wnf”. No assignment if “dfh9whf8wn0n08wnf” is not linked at all to you (pseudonym).
An interesting detail in Dr. Wright’s GIAC white paper from 2008
You see the author’s details in Dr. Wright’s paper from 2008. On the second page, it states:
An @bdo mail address? Correct, as Dr. Wright has been working at BDO around the time the Bitcoin white paper was drafted.
In the Norwegian Granath v Wright court case, a witness and former co-worker of Dr. Wright—also at BDO—testified that Dr. Wright pitched a project titled “Timechain” to BDO before 2008. Timechain is a term describing that blockchains time stamp events. One may read “timechain” as “bitcoin” because the time stamping function is a key element of and in Bitcoin.
At least scroll through the GIAC white paper from Dr. Wright. Check out his current publications. This is not “average education.” It is not a coincidence.
The evidence is hardening. The idea of Bitcoin started in 1998.
RELATED TO BENCHMARKTRADING REGISTER